The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I've carefully read the discussion, and in this particular case, the delete arguments carry the day by asserting that there isn't sufficient sourcing to justify a list of bands recording here as a standalone list, without any real refutation. The "keep" arguments consist of an argument to ignore the rules (which requires consensus and clearly does not have it), a "what the heck", and an irrelevant argument regarding Wikia. None of these are convincing arguments as to why a list argument is necessary separately from the studio article itself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have recorded at Phase One Studios[edit]

List of artists who have recorded at Phase One Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a promo article (of bad quality) for Phase One Studios. An unsourced list that does not add any usefull to the encyclopedia. Pure WP:FANCRUFT. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you explain why it is not useful or encyclopedic, for notable recording studios, to list the notable recording artists who have recorded there? I would think it's a rather key part of its history, and a good part of why a studio is notable, just as for film/television studios we would want to know what was actually shot there. And I see no basis at all for dismissing this as promotional, other than the completely uninteresting fact that the subject is a for-profit entity. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My main concern at the moment is that the list is entirely unsourced. That should be fixed first. Secondly, you havethe author who has compiled the list , so you haveis the one to prove that this list is encyclopedic. The studio is notable, I don't argue about that. And mentioning a few artists (max 10) in that article, is fair. But this list is fancruft and promo. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't compile the list; I have never even edited it. Regardless, do you have an actual argument that the list is unencyclopedic, fancruft, and promotional, beyond your unelaborated repetition of those opinions? I've already explained why I think the contrary, so please explain yourself. postdlf (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless there's something special about this particular studio that artists have praised it for, there's no reason for this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special beyond being notable? postdlf (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, even the moderate notability of this studio. Should we also have List of politicians who have worked in the White House? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The claim isn't that any artist who recorded there is notable so this isn't a "NOTINHERITED" issue. The list is just the indexing of articles that share a single fact relating to this notable studio, in the same manner as a list of notable people who were alumni of a notable university. So the question is merely whether the list is encyclopedic (if it was agreed that it was encyclopedic, and the list were shorter, it would simply be included within the studio's article without any controversy). I'm willing to presume that it is encyclopedic. I might be wrong on that; it might be that music historians, critics, and biographers are completely uninterested in this (though it is typically noted in an album's credits). But no one has yet made a substantive and informed comment to that point, just conclusory statements rather than substantive explanations particular to this topic, and complaints about present sourcing rather than ultimate verifiability. postdlf (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments above; I do not yet see a rebuttal of the notion that this is an integral part of a notable studio's history, or a substantive deletion argument of any kind. postdlf (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I don't see any valid reason nor independent sources to say it is apart of their history, important enough for inclusion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per WP:V. Inclusion in the list isn't supported by the text of the articles (e.g. Sting (musician)). Either provide reliable sources, or delete. Pburka (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying it's unverifiable as to whether any of these artists ever recorded at this studio? That no sources exist that could document this fact? I find that unlikely. We do not delete an article just because it is currently without sources. postdlf (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm saying that I can't find any evidence in reliable sources that Sting recorded at Phase One Studios other than their own website. I don't intend to check every name in the list. Pburka (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 16:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• delete little evidence of independent verifiability, per WP:UNDUE. Whatever verifiable (from independent sources) may go into the main article. YOU don't dump everything from someone website into its wikipedia article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (vote changed); While I still of opinion that whatever verifiable may go into the main article (and I deleted 95% of the list, since it was tagged as unreferenced for month, and added 2 albums), but since it already exists, what the heck. Wikipedia is not paper. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per postdlf. List are not articles in the usual sense, and their inclusion is not dictated by the usual criteria, the WP:GNG for instance. They are meant to be navigational guides for our readers, and their very purpose is to be useful. While many people may not have any use for a list such as this, many other people might, which can be assumed for at least one person once someone has compiled it, and can be safely assumed for many others too, as mentioned above, musicians, music historians, critics, biographers, and why not, the general public too. Specifically, it's usefulness lies in that it condenses relevant components of the history of a notable studio into a single article, saving the reader from having to search the entire encyclopedia exhaustively for every possible qualifying item. Feel free to remove any contentious item until it can be properly verified (bear in mind though that things are expected to be verifiable, not verified, so if verification is provided in an existing article there is no need for it to be replicated here). The subject of the list itself doesn't meet our deletion criteria — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is we have to delete all items from the list, since there is no independent evidence that anybody recorded anyhing notable there; maybe greetings for their girlfriend at best, since there is no list of recordings done there. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • If no notable artist had ever recorded there then yes, I'd agree that having the list would be pointless unless there was some very special reason for it. But that is not the case [1] [2]. That an album, or part of it, was recorded at the studio is a straight forward fact that may be verified by the albums themselves if it is documented on their booklets, which is common practice — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • From WP:SAL "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as notability guidelines." Theye are subject to WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're correct. I didn't mean to wholly dismiss the policies and guidelines, but it came out that way. What I meant is that they apply to the content of the list, rarely to the list itself. For most lists, including this one, that means that they should only include notable items (blue links), and that the inclusion criteria of the list should be well defined and not indiscriminate. V, N, NOR, NOT, they all come into play when it comes to decide whether to include or exclude a particular item, but that is not what is being discussed here — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List was created for promotion and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists and no good reason has been given why this promo piece should stay. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per postdlf and Frankie. Is it not time to retire FANCRUFT? After all, it has served the purpose of making Wikia commercially viable. Anarchangel (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the two remaining sourced entries to Phase One Studios. There's no point in having standalone lists that short.  Sandstein  05:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:IINFO. Notability for this studio's client list has not been established. The main article on the studio is currently very short, and this material could easily be included in it, if desired. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 16:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.